If I am GC, I will use the political statement rather than her being a woman as an argument. You can't win a jury on Disney on just about anything female related, after all those Disney Princesses, they ARE the powerhouse for Female Empowerment, they can get away with just about anything regarding woman and women right. You won't be able to find an unbiased jury if they play the woman card on a Disney lawsuit, unless you get an all-male jury, which in itself is already biased.shevek wrote: ↑3 months agoI don't think anyone on this forum disagrees with that.
Her lawsuit, however, goes to the core of whether Disney's heavy hand was applied equally. I don't know if she can do it, but she is trying to prove that the male actors got a lot more free passes from Disney than she did. For example, Pedro Pascal took a clear stance on Gaza (and I think there's a reason why he did that: Chile is the largest home of Palestinians in exile in the world, so he was playing to his core fanbase). Jonathan Majors committed an assault but wasn't officially canned until he was convicted. I don't know the whole list but I'm sure she and Elon are going down the litany with a fine-toothed comb.
And what she is doing, is trying to use Disney's supposed pro-female stance against them. That is to say, Disney claims to take a pro-active effort to foreground women in the company, feature them as star characters in the productions, and champion their cause. All of that was according to both Kathleen Kennedy ("The Force is Female") and Victoria Alonso. In fact, Alonso was fired by Disney recently, but only after the company produced a large settlement for her.
Carano got no such settlement, to my knowledge. The lawsuit claims that Disney goes out of its way to support women as a protected class but only in so far as they express the correct political doctrines. This may or may not fly in court (and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't, because a 'private company can do what it wants') but her argument in the suit is that there was sex-based discrimination, not just being 'burned' politically.
So, we'll see.
Still, I would say her case is almost certainly dead on arrival, recently I had a similar case with our firm, the person was fired because his value differ from the company value, the issue here is, in what way a difference can be this big you have to part way, it turns out, there aren't really any prescribed solution, basically it's like the most common reason why people choose to divorce - "irreconcilable differences"